{"id":60119,"date":"2018-06-07T17:46:47","date_gmt":"2018-06-07T21:46:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60119"},"modified":"2018-06-07T17:46:53","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T21:46:53","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-wednesday-june-6th-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60119","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Wednesday, June 6th 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Wednesday, June 6th, 2018, the 74th anniversary of the greatest amphibious operation in history:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…that these dead shall not have died in vain \u2014 that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom \u2014 and that government of<\/span> the people, by<\/span> the people, for<\/span> the people, shall not perish from the earth<\/em>.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition; and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here…”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We<\/em><\/span>, like you<\/em><\/span>, will never<\/em><\/span> forget their sacrifice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

WE INTERRUPT OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING FOR THIS NEWS FLASH FORWARDED BY GEORGE LAWLOR:<\/strong><\/p>\n

CNN: McCabe Seeks Immunity for Senate Testimony on Hillary<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Though, considering the source (Newsmax.com<\/em>), we’ll withhold judgment pending further developments.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, the WSJ<\/em>\u00a0puts some pointed icing on…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Half-Baked Cake<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

Kennedy saves a baker from anti-religious bias he said couldn\u2019t happen<\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday for a baker who refused to custom-bake a cake for a same-sex wedding out of sincere religious belief. Hold the champagne\u2014this apparent victory for religious freedom may<\/em><\/span> be short-lived.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in legalizing same-sex marriage in\u00a0Obergefell\u00a0<\/em>(2015), the<\/em> \u201cFirst Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faith<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> Therefore<\/em><\/span>, he predicted, the decision would pose \u201cno risk of harm to themselves or third parties<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Masterpiece\u00a0<\/em>Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission\u00a0<\/em>has forced Justice Kennedy to eat those words<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> In 2012 a gay couple<\/em><\/span> asked Colorado baker Jack Phillips to bake a cake for their marriage<\/span><\/em>, which at the time wasn\u2019t recognized under Colorado law<\/span><\/em>. Mr. Phillips refused<\/em><\/span> but offered to sell the couple any baked good or cake off the shelf<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> Creating<\/em><\/span> a wedding cake for an event that \u201ccelebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony<\/span>,\u201d he said<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Mr. Phillips had violated the state public accommodation law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A state appellate court agreed.<\/p>\n

While seven Justices on the High Court held<\/em><\/span> for Mr. Phillips, the majority decision could have gone the other way had some facts been different<\/em><\/span>. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy notes that Mr. Phillips was \u201centitled to a neutral<\/em><\/span> decision-maker.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yet several<\/em><\/span> commissioners evinced overt hostility toward religion<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> One<\/em><\/span> declared that \u201cfreedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust<\/em><\/span>\u201d and \u201cit is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to<\/span>\u2014to use their religion to hurt others<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As is his wont, Justice Kennedy strains<\/em><\/span> to avoid a clear and decisive ruling. While \u201creligious and philosophical objections [to same-sex marriage] are protected, it is a general rule that such objections\u201d don\u2019t allow the denial of services \u201cunder a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,\u201d he writes.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps the best<\/em><\/span> that can be said is that florists, make-up artists, photographers and other people of faith have lived to fight another day<\/em><\/span>. A ruling against Mr. Phillips would have been catastrophic for religious liberty, but the majority\u2019s muddle provides only gossamer protection.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The American Civil Liberties Union gloated that the Court ruled \u201cbased on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace.\u201d The message is that governments can punish religious beliefs as long as they keep their animus toward religion in the closet<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Justices Neil Gorsuch (joined by Samuel Alito ) and Clarence Thomas tag-teamed with forceful concurrences that would have gone further to protect the free exercise of religion and speech.<\/strong><\/span> Justice Thomas explained that custom-baking a wedding cake would have made Mr. Phillips \u201can active participant in the wedding celebration.\u201d Invoking Court precedents that tolerated white supremacist expression, he notes that \u201cStates cannot punish protected speech<\/span> because some group<\/span> finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Gorsuch took the commission to task for applying a different standard<\/em><\/span> in a case involving a baker who had refused to bake wedding cakes that\u00a0criticized<\/span>\u00a0same-sex marriage<\/em>: Civil authorities may not \u201cgerrymander their inquiries based on the parties they prefer<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/strong> Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer defended the commission\u2019s disparate treatment<\/em><\/span> in their concurrence.<\/span> While they agreed<\/em><\/span> with Justice Kennedy that the commission had evinced bias<\/em><\/span> toward Mr. Phillips, they said the commission could<\/em><\/span> have legally punished him if<\/em><\/span> commissioners had shown no overt religious bias<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Though Justice Kennedy rescued Mr. Phillips from the prejudice that he said in\u00a0Obergefell\u00a0<\/em>couldn\u2019t happen, the writing may be on the wedding cake. Four<\/em><\/span> liberal Justices aren\u2019t content<\/span> with the right<\/span>\u00a0<\/em>(fabricated though it is<\/em>)<\/span> to same-sex marriage<\/em>; they want to coerce everyone else to celebrate it<\/span> no matter their religious beliefs<\/span>, and politicians will follow<\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The fundamental constitutional issue may have to be settled by a post-Kennedy Court, while lower courts in the meantime will decide case by case whether governments can compel religious people to endorse conduct with which they\u00a0(constitutionally<\/em>)<\/span> disagree.<\/span>\u00a0Masterpiece Cakeshop\u00a0<\/em>won\u2019t go down in history as a legal masterpiece.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

For more on the principled person at the center of an unprincipled, manufactured controversy which should never have been, we turn to\u00a0Townhall.com<\/em>‘s Guy Benson:<\/strong><\/p>\n

SCOTUS Rules 7-2 Against Anti-Religious<\/span><\/span> Bullying, But Punts on Key Legal Question<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…By way of background, here is a piece\u00a0detailing the treatment<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u00a0Masterpiece Bakeshop endured at the hands of officious bureaucrats, relayed by\u00a0The Federalist’s<\/em>\u00a0David Harsanyi:<\/p>\n

\n

It is worth mentioning that public accommodation laws have been on the books for a while.\u00a0Phillips had never turned anyone away in his shop<\/span>, and the incident at Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012 went down before gay marriage was legal in Colorado, or anywhere else in the country, for that matter.\u00a0<\/strong>In fact, at the time of the incident, Colorado\u2019s constitution featured an amendment, passed in 2006 by a 56 percent margin, codifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/span>(Disclosure: as a columnist at\u00a0The Denver Post\u00a0during these battles, I regularly argued in support of gay marriage.)\u00a0The commission was not above retroactive punishment<\/span>, however. At the time, being found guilty of violating civil rights laws didn\u2019t only mean the end of Phillips\u2019 life\u2019s work<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0The punishment for refusing to make a special cake for a gay wedding was $500 and<\/span> one year in prison per charge<\/span> (jail time was only later amended out of the law when general public learned about the statute<\/span>). The shop was not only ordered to alter its policy and start participating in gay weddings or else face debilitating fines, it was told to provide comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, then<\/span> file quarterly obedience reports with the government\u00a0for <\/span><\/strong>two full years<\/strong><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n